Ketanji Brown Jackson Challenges Trump Attorney to Explain Why January 6 Wasn’t an Insurrection

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson interrogated Jonathan Mitchell, the attorney representing former President Donald Trump in the Colorado ballot ban case during oral arguments on Thursday, asking him to explain why the January 6 Capitol riot was not an insurrection.

Here’s how the exchange went:

JACKSON: The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner’s supporters, in this case to halt the count on January 6, qualified as an insurrection, as defined by section three. And I read your opening brief to accept that those events counted as an insurrection. But then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not. So what is your position as to that?

MITCHELL: We never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection. What we said in our opening brief was President Trump did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as insurrection. 

JACKSON: Alright, so why would this not be an insurr- what is your argument that it’s not? Your reply brief says that it wasn’t, because I think you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government.

MITCHELL: That’s one of many reasons. But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. And this-

JACKSON: So your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?

MITCHELL: No, we didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson, right? None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things. But it did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section three. 

JACKSON: Thank you.

MITCHELL: Thanks.

Watch above via MSNBC.